more on Software makers should pay for bad products [TECH UPDATE]

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:29:31 +0100
> From: M Taylor <mctaylor () privacy nb ca>
> Subject: Re: [IP] Software makers should pay for bad products [TECH UPDATE]
> To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
>
> [for IP if you want -mct]
>
> > Software makers should pay for bad products
>
> You can't have it both ways, IT managers want their cake and to eat it
> too. There are companies that make less known, less exciting products
> that do work, some are developed with certification, and guess what? Very
> few IT managers are willing to pay the increase cost and accept the
> lack of new and exciting new bells and whistles.
>
> How many companies buy Trusted Solaris or other Orange Book or
> CC certified OS and run them in an approved config? Outside the
> military and NSA, I suspect close to zero.
>
> Take the IBM OS/390 series, it has been around for a while now, and
> there has been a stable and predictiable upgrade path, with good
> relability that can only be dreamed about in the typical Windows
> or Linux computing environment. But who wants to pay the price and
> try to sell such as unsexy purchase to the CEO and the board? IT
> managers have come to rely on more mainstream product vendors
> that make better packaged (read: sexier package with all the latest
> trendy features) products which can be sold easier to the board
> because their name is more familiar (e.g. Microsoft) than obscure
> companies, many of whom are no more, DEC, Wang, Acorn, ... that
> tried to deliver business oriented computing that worked. I still
> have a soft spot for DEC's VAX VMS systems which could be clustered
> to survive hardware and software upgrades in the late 1980s. I'm
> still waiting for all those features in x86 based systems, regardless
> of OS. I originally was very hopeful of Microsoft's "Trustworthy
> Computing", but I've lowered my expectations, and hope that the
> idea lasts so that get a little big closer to not quite wide open and
> naked infrastructure.
>
> I think the other issue is compatability, because most hardware and
> software does actually do its basic function, but intergrating it into
> a business's overall infrastructure is a challenge. Part of the reason
> for this is the vendor trying to vie for more business and engaging in
> action to encourage lockout of their competitors. Hal Varin's Information
> Rules explains it far better than I ever could.
>
> Vendors are not the only ones to blame, customers want cheap, fast,
> feature-rich, "exciting" products. That's what they actually buy. With
> the dot-com hype coming to an end I had high hopes that the computing
> industry would slow down, take some time to look back at what works
> and what doesn't and grow up. I had hoped that the VC and the 'newest
> new thing' reporters would go back to stock promoting, and IT managers
> would survey their domains and go back and fix things like the lack
> of documentation, testing, disaster planning, and everything else
> skipped during the "get big fast" days. Instead I see managers looking
> for new productivty "silver bullets", and continue building new even
> less secure networking infrastructure (thanks WiFi) in some mad dash
> to get those dollars out of the ether somehow.
>
> IT managers need to stop giving their money away, and then complaining
> about getting expensive, complex, broken, incompatible, insecure
> products.
>
> Wake me up when IT is willing to grow up.
>
> --
> M Taylor
> http://www.mctaylor.com/

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/